PDA

View Full Version : Reality Check: The "Politically Incorrect Truth" About The Second Amendment


ANGLICO
01-04-2013, 1:44 PM
Title of Article: Reality Check: The "Politically Incorrect Truth" About The Second Amendment
Real Clear Politics Article
Posted on January 4, 2013

WXIX-TV Tucson reporter Ben Swann takes a look at what he called the "politically incorrect" truth about the Second Amendment. In his "Reality Check" segment for the local FOX affiliate, Swann explains the true intention behind the Second Amendment.

"This is where American history becomes very politically incorrect because the Second Amendment was not drafted for hunting, or just self defense from an attacker. The Second Amendment was put into place to guarantee the rights of the individual to be equally armed as military, both foreign and domestic, in the event that the citizenry might actually, at some point, have to fight their own government," explained Swann.

...Snip....."The Second Amendment is about making sure the population would not be controlled, dominated or oppressed by a government," Swann explained. "It's not my place to tell you what the Founders were thinking, or what they would be thinking today. But the principle of what they put into place had nothing to do with the kind of weapon they were guaranteeing, it was simply about matching force."

My Comments: +100 to this Reporter! There is no way in the world they would show this guy in the California media market!

The Video is worth watching.

The news report Video is with the article at the link: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/01/04/reality_check_the_politically_incorrect_truth_abou t_the_second_amendment.html

Also, there are other videos of him, and especially on 2A topics on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=reality+check+ben+swann+this+ week&oq=Reality+Check+Ben&gs_l=youtube.1.1.0l10.171.18423.0.20623.14.10.0.1. 1.0.328.1592.0j4j3j1.8.0...0.0...1ac.1.Lv_miYOP3SM

press1280
01-04-2013, 2:34 PM
This kind of argument is what's missing in all this AWB nonsense. When they ask why anyone needs an AW-this is the answer(along with having fun at the range).

nothinghere2c
01-04-2013, 2:39 PM
I use this talking point which is usually countered with a weak response like "that would never happen here" or "you think your rifle can stand up against stealth bombers and nukes?"

Damn True
01-04-2013, 2:41 PM
I happen to have written something similar this morning. Not for the ADHD afflicted - http://thedamntrueexperiment.blogspot.com/2013/01/why-does-2nd-amendment-exist-at-all.html

Rusty_Rebar
01-04-2013, 3:44 PM
I use this talking point which is usually countered with a weak response like "that would never happen here" or "you think your rifle can stand up against stealth bombers and nukes?"

I hear the you think your rifle can stand up against stealth bombers and nukes question often. I think it is a silly question.

Obviously if the entire police dept, or the 101st is parked outside your door, your rifle is not gonna do much good. This is not the sort of situation that would occur. It is not gonna be 101 Airborne vs John's house. It is gonna be the whole country in rebellion (or a large proportion). The Army (if they even participated in this) or police are going to be dealing with millions of rebellious people, all with guns, and suddenly all those rifles would be quite effective.

The opposition forces in Afghanistan and Iraq gave the US Army quite a run for their money.

nothinghere2c
01-04-2013, 3:48 PM
I hear the you think your rifle can stand up against stealth bombers and nukes question often. I think it is a silly question.

Obviously if the entire police dept, or the 101st is parked outside your door, your rifle is not gonna do much good. This is not the sort of situation that would occur. It is not gonna be 101 Airborne vs John's house. It is gonna be the whole country in rebellion (or a large proportion). The Army (if they even participated in this) or police are going to be dealing with millions of rebellious people, all with guns, and suddenly all those rifles would be quite effective.

The opposition forces in Afghanistan and Iraq gave the US Army quite a run for their money.

exactly.

ervaztec
01-04-2013, 3:56 PM
I hear the you think your rifle can stand up against stealth bombers and nukes question often. I think it is a silly question.

Obviously if the entire police dept, or the 101st is parked outside your door, your rifle is not gonna do much good. This is not the sort of situation that would occur. It is not gonna be 101 Airborne vs John's house. It is gonna be the whole country in rebellion (or a large proportion). The Army (if they even participated in this) or police are going to be dealing with millions of rebellious people, all with guns, and suddenly all those rifles would be quite effective.

The opposition forces in Afghanistan and Iraq gave the US Army quite a run for their money.

Not to mention Viet Cong Peasants.

radioman
01-04-2013, 4:04 PM
I have been told that by anti's, I tell them. They would be on our side.

pbchief2
01-04-2013, 4:06 PM
I hear the you think your rifle can stand up against stealth bombers and nukes question often. I think it is a silly question.

Obviously if the entire police dept, or the 101st is parked outside your door, your rifle is not gonna do much good. This is not the sort of situation that would occur. It is not gonna be 101 Airborne vs John's house. It is gonna be the whole country in rebellion (or a large proportion). The Army (if they even participated in this) or police are going to be dealing with millions of rebellious people, all with guns, and suddenly all those rifles would be quite effective.

The opposition forces in Afghanistan and Iraq gave the US Army quite a run for their money.

Add the defects for the military and police forces, and the playing field starts to even out. Foreign invaders would be the biggest problem during a rebellion.

radioman
01-04-2013, 4:24 PM
Add the defects for the military and police forces, and the playing field starts to even out. Foreign invaders would be the biggest problem during a rebellion.

If our fight was to defend the Constitution, the military and some of the police forces would be on our side. It would get bloody, freedom is just that way.

aermotor
01-04-2013, 4:59 PM
I don't understand how the Government can knowingly and overtly, deny us the Rights guaranteed by the Constitution. How can the Supreme Court actually stand for this if they are indeed upholding their sworn oath to the Constitution? It's absolutely sickening. This video tells it like it is, there's no debating it.

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead: